Why we fight...

[Sean85]

I know the majority of the reasons we fight in Iraq but i was wondering if anyone had the link to the post that talked about the rest of them? Im helping my class prepare for a debate on the Iraq War and I need pro-liberation information. Thanks ahead of time.

[NcDeuce]

1. The creation of a constitutional, multi-party, democracy in Iraq, if it is one that stipulates one or two term limitations for its head of state, will be a milestone in all of Islamic civilization's political culture which, in the past, has been so pervaded by life-time national patriarchal figures, so-called "strongmen" and dictators.

2. The primary concern about Iraq today was its possession, development, use and proliferation of "weapons of mass destruction". Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and his own Kurdish population, and has threatened to use them against Israel. He also possesses biological weapons, and is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. He was obligated under the 1991 agreement ending the Gulf War to permit UN inspections and to dismantle all WMD. But he defied the inspectors for years, and since 1998 has refused to allow them to enter the country. High-level Iraqi defectors indicate that Saddam still seeks to possess WMD

3. Another major worry is Iraq's sponsorship and training of terrorists. Of course, other countries like Syria and Iran do that as well, yet haven't been the object of U.S. invasion threats. But the prospect of Saddam Hussein arming terrorists with WMD puts him in another league.

[Skaman]

We fight for oil! We fight for foothods in the middle east! We fight for a new spot to put Mcdonalds! We fight for trade! We fight for an excuse to do daddies work!

and the flaming starts... :lol:


Im half kidding by the way......HALF

[Dennis G]

yeah you may only be half kidding but your still 100% ASS

[NcDeuce]

yeah you may only be half kidding but your still 100% ASS

Damn, I couldn't have said it better.

[Skaman]

hmmm, this is certainly reminicsenct of "Can Americans take a joke?"


Perhaps my joke was a little too brutally honest, but owell. Do you guys want some sugar and whip cream toppings so I can lighten it up next time?

[NcDeuce]

hmmm, this is certainly reminicsenct of "Can Americans take a joke?"

Perhaps my joke was a little too brutally honest, but owell. Do you guys want some sugar and whip cream toppings so I can lighten it up next time?

You've used the same "joke" for months and no, it is not "brutally honest".

Do you want a hammer shoved up your ass?

[Sean85]

Oh christ, all i was looking for was TF's answer and ducimus steps on with his BS again, oh well, thanks TF for the quick response by the way, ducimus im only HALF playing with you....

[Skaman]

oh my! :o

[Zach R.]

TF, I could probably say it better. :D But I don't want to get banned.

[Vance]

dicmus insult-o-meter


clunk clunk clunk clunk clunk clunk clunk clunk

[One?]

We fight for oil! We fight for foothods in the middle east! We fight for a new spot to put Mcdonalds! We fight for trade! We fight for an excuse to do daddies work!

and the flaming starts... :lol:


Im half kidding by the way......HALF

I'm with you 100%

You want to flame go ahead but thats the truth....

[James]

Oh, you damn Canadians... Don't you know anything?

The U.S. invaded Iraq because Iraq possessed WMD that were an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. No, wait... it was for regime change. Yeah... oh, wait, to liberate the people of Iraq.

I might have been down with liberation if that was the reason all along, but... I think it became the most convenient thing for the honorable Mr. Bush to use.

[Dennis G]

hmmm, this is certainly reminicsenct of "Can Americans take a joke?"

Perhaps my joke was a little too brutally honest, but owell. Do you guys want some sugar and whip cream toppings so I can lighten it up next time?

You've used the same "joke" for months and no, it is not "brutally honest".

Do you want a hammer shoved up your ass?

I can take a joke but it gets old after a while douchebag19 oh sorry ****head19 but "If you don't love it, leave it...when you're runnin' down my country, you're walking on the fightin' side of me."

[HooyahCQB]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
--bull****, Terrorists don't give **** about other peoples freedom. :backhand:

[usa320]

hmmm, this is certainly reminicsenct of "****mus19 is an asshole" thread.

[jdbjdb]

No no the war is/was about The United States and Israel taking over the world ;)

[Skaman]

Oh, you damn Canadians... Don't you know anything?

The U.S. invaded Iraq because Iraq possessed WMD that were an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. No, wait... it was for regime change. Yeah... oh, wait, to liberate the people of Iraq.

I might have been down with liberation if that was the reason all along, but... I think it became the most convenient thing for the honorable Mr. Bush to use.

Agreed. Its far better when other people say it, then I dont get jumped on and ripped apart. After all, im bias and anti american? :roll:


Is james? no, hes relistic. Simple as that.

[Ratamacue]

James doesn't solely bitch about the US on all topics. He isn't against every single thing American. He's simply against the war and against Bush, and I respect that. He's also far more composed in his arguments and doesn't start flame wars by going off-topic.

[Skaman]

James doesn't solely bitch about the US on all topics. He isn't against every single thing American. He's simply against the war and against Bush, and I respect that. He's also far more composed in his arguments and doesn't start flame wars by going off-topic.

Did I say was against everything orientated with America. Absoultely not. I like the people, dislike the Bush administration and Americas global imperial business conglmerates. I think the mentality of the American people is not so far from my neighbours down the street. I have been to many states, and I hold American citizens in high regard. Sorry If I come across the opposite. I respect the soldiers, not what they are made to do for false reasons.

[NcDeuce]

they are made to do for false reasons.


1. There is nothing false about liberating the Iraqi people, ending the torture and extermination of innocent civilian populations, and knocking off some chemcial/biological weapons.

Besides, last time I checked, it was an all-volunteer force. That's why we can have people like you, just sit back and throw rocks at the U.S.

[Midtown]

****inmouth, where in canada are you?

[Skaman]

they are made to do for false reasons.


1. There is nothing false about liberating the Iraqi people, ending the torture and extermination of innocent civilian populations, and knocking off some chemcial/biological weapons.

Besides, last time I checked, it was an all-volunteer force. That's why we can have people like you, just sit back and throw rocks at the U.S.


The agenda has changed numerous times. What happaned to the original pre cursors to Iraqi involvement, the WMD? I agree, if the attention foremost was to libertae the Iraqi people I would support the movement without question. Additionaly, why liberate Iraq, a nation in dire need no doubt, yet not as "warm welcoming" as other nations which need equal if not more attention. How about eliminatiing the poverty and class fragmentation of S.A and undoing the problems brought on by failed and skewed South American Political interventions. Additionaly, Haiti, Much of W. Africa etc. I thought the intentions in Liberia were great, yet not nearly enough.

[Skaman]

****inmouth, where in canada are you?

Adress me properly and I wont give you a half assed answer.

[James]

James doesn't solely bitch about the US on all topics. He isn't against every single thing American. He's simply against the war and against Bush, and I respect that. He's also far more composed in his arguments and doesn't start flame wars by going off-topic.

I appreciate that. I love America, and I count myself as a patriot - not for what America is, but for what it could be.

[rokus2595]

...Im helping my class prepare for a debate on the Iraq War and I need pro-liberation information. Thanks ahead of time.

then look no further than:



1. The creation of a constitutional, multi-party, democracy in Iraq, if it is one that stipulates one or two term limitations for its head of state, will be a milestone in all of Islamic civilization's political culture which, in the past, has been so pervaded by life-time national patriarchal figures, so-called "strongmen" and dictators.

2. The primary concern about Iraq today was its possession, development, use and proliferation of "weapons of mass destruction". Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and his own Kurdish population, and has threatened to use them against Israel. He also possesses biological weapons, and is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. He was obligated under the 1991 agreement ending the Gulf War to permit UN inspections and to dismantle all WMD. But he defied the inspectors for years, and since 1998 has refused to allow them to enter the country. High-level Iraqi defectors indicate that Saddam still seeks to possess WMD

3. Another major worry is Iraq's sponsorship and training of terrorists. Of course, other countries like Syria and Iran do that as well, yet haven't been the object of U.S. invasion threats. But the prospect of Saddam Hussein arming terrorists with WMD puts him in another league.

now if you want to know why the pro-liberation info TF wrote is a whole bunch of crap then..oh never mind, that would be off topic...

[James]

they are made to do for false reasons.


1. There is nothing false about liberating the Iraqi people, ending the torture and extermination of innocent civilian populations, and knocking off some chemcial/biological weapons.

Besides, last time I checked, it was an all-volunteer force. That's why we can have people like you, just sit back and throw rocks at the U.S.

I think the reference was made about why the honorable Mr. Bush took us to war. It certainly wasn't to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Personally, I have never and will never say a thing against our men and women in uniform. I was once a proud member of our armed forces, and I thank everyone who wears a uniform today for my freedom. That said, I feel like the men and women in the U.S. Military today are victims of U.S. foreign policy.

[Sean85]

how if you want to know why the pro-liberation info TF wrote is a whole bunch of crap then..oh never mind, that would be off topic...

actually i would love to hear that as well, my job in the debate is to get just one side of the story but if i dont know what the other side is thinking what good does that do me?[/quote]

[stateofequilibrium]

they are made to do for false reasons.


1. There is nothing false about liberating the Iraqi people, ending the torture and extermination of innocent civilian populations, and knocking off some chemcial/biological weapons.

Besides, last time I checked, it was an all-volunteer force. That's why we can have people like you, just sit back and throw rocks at the U.S.

The problem is this.. whatever happened to the other two parts of the axis of evil? Compared to Kim-Jong Il, Saddam Hussein is a small potato.

Com'on.. Bush made a big deal about Hussein researching WMDs when he was not supposed to. Then N. Korea comes along, who's DEFINATELY not supposed to have WMDs, and says "We have nukes!" And I believe N. Korea has much more suffering and persecution than the Iraqis. I have classmates from Iraq and they said it wasn't that bad.. bad, but not that bad.

[Skaman]

they are made to do for false reasons.


1. There is nothing false about liberating the Iraqi people, ending the torture and extermination of innocent civilian populations, and knocking off some chemcial/biological weapons.

Besides, last time I checked, it was an all-volunteer force. That's why we can have people like you, just sit back and throw rocks at the U.S.

The problem is this.. whatever happened to the other two parts of the axis of evil? Compared to Kim-Jong Il, Saddam Hussein is a small potato.

Com'on.. Bush made a big deal about Hussein researching WMDs when he was not supposed to. Then N. Korea comes along, who's DEFINATELY not supposed to have WMDs, and says "We have nukes!" And I believe N. Korea has much more suffering and persecution than the Iraqis. I have classmates from Iraq and they said it wasn't that bad.. bad, but not that bad.


This ties in perfectly to the validity of my previous post. Im glad to see a resurgence of thought concernign the Iraq War and Bush interpretation. p-)

well said stateofequilibrium

[Shake n Bake]

I'am Spartacus

[IDFM203]

I have enough on my plate so to speak with other issues on this board so I don’t really comment too much on the Iraq thing, but two posters caught my attention and I just couldn’t resist responding to it.

Before I go on I would just like to make a note to everyone that it is pointless to me to bring up what bush said or allegedly said for I feel it is a petty argument to bring up for or against this war. I think the war was justified and I believe so not based on anything George bush said or didn’t say or allegedly said.

I think if one disagrees with this war then that’s fine and he can bring his reasons but if most of it relies on what bush said or didn’t say then that is a very weak thing to base your negative arguments on.

This leads me now to the first quote.



The U.S. invaded Iraq because Iraq possessed WMD that were an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. No, wait... it was for regime change. Yeah... oh, wait, to liberate the people of Iraq.

I might have been down with liberation if that was the reason all along, but... I think it became the most convenient thing for the honorable Mr. Bush to use. you seem like a reasonable poster here so I don’t mean to sound rude and I apologise if I do, but I think your last statement translates to me a lack of moral conviction based on universal principles. In other words, it sounds like you have a lot of good reasons for this war but simply because bush allegedly lied you now don’t support it. I think that’s pretty weak. I mean even if he did lie, I don’t think it takes away from the justifications of this war.
Listen if you don’t like bush then that’s fine, but to say that you are against this war even after you acknowledge positive reasons for it but simply on bush you negate all that, well that to me is faulty reasoning.



The problem is this.. whatever happened to the other two parts of the axis of evil? Compared to Kim-Jong Il, Saddam Hussein is a small potato.

Com'on.. Bush made a big deal about Hussein researching WMDs when he was not supposed to. Then N. Korea comes along, who's DEFINATELY not supposed to have WMDs, and says "We have nukes!" And I believe N. Korea has much more suffering and persecution than the Iraqis. I think a lot in the left (for a lack of a better definition) are completely missing the point about North Korea and the arguments that go with it as it pertains to the Iraq situation.

I take a complete opposite view of it.
I think one (of many)of the justifications for this war is precisely because of the situation in North Korea, that the U.S. needed to attack Iraq.

The fact is that for a while now, North Korea has been at a point of no return meaning that they have nuclear weapons and bombs. This means that the U.S. or anyone is basically powerless to stop them. Yes the U.S. is the greatest military in the world but if it had attacked north korea, los Angeles (yes they have missiles with that range) or other U.S. places or troops over there, not to mention over a million Koreans would be killed in the first days.

The fact is that the U.S. attacked Iraq for they had nuclear stuff but not at the level of north Korea and they were building to get more and the U.S. attacked now in order to prevent them from reaching the point of no return as the north Koreans have reached for once its at that point, there is basically nothing to be done and the world is basically held hostage to the demands of a fanatical tyrant.

Just some of my .02……………

(I might not respond as I usually do for alot of other threads keep me preoccupied but I will try my best)


Shalom :D

[James]

I have a number of concerns with our most recent war with Iraq. Far and away is the fact that the president of the United States (IMHO) lied to me and 280 million other Americans about the reasons we went to war. I find that unforgiveable. I voted for George Bush in 2000, and he lied to me. I hold him responsible for the deaths of what 500? young men and women who chose to serve their country. That is not acceptable to me.

As far as supporting the war - I wish the U.S. hadn't started it, but that's history now. Since it did start, and has been going on since March, I want our troops to have everything they need to get the job done and come home. The sooner the Iraqis take charge of their country, the better.

[IDFM203]

As far as supporting the war - I wish the U.S. hadn't started it, but that's history now. . well that’s my whole problem with your postings. You make it seem like you now wish the U.S. didn’t start the war simply because of bush’s alleged lying but you do acknowledge before that “I might have been down with liberation if that was the reason all along” whereas that’s a good reason but then you go on to say “but... I think it became the most convenient thing for the honorable Mr. Bush to use” which seems like that whole liberation thing you negate simply because of bush’s alleged lying

Again that seems pretty weak to negate that justified reason (liberation)

I mean liberation doesn’t go poof out the window simply because of what bush says or allegedly says.

listen if bush lied with aspects then as an american you have every right to be pissed and demand accountability, but in the overall picture I dont see how that takes a way from the justifications of this war.

Shalom :D

[StarvingStudent47]

Something to think about, James:

We didn't fight the civil war to end slavery in the USA. We fought it to preserve the Union. But the war still caused the end of slavery in the USA. The war caused a good greater than its initial goals.

We didn't fight WWII-Europe to stop the Holocaust. We fought it to help defend our allies. But the war still caused the end of the Holocaust. The war caused a good greater than its initial goals.

What was in Bush's head when he planned the invasion of Iraq? I have no idea. I can't read minds. Maybe he was just using the WMD thing as an excuse. Maybe he believed it and it wasn't true. Maybe it was true and Saddam just hid his arms too darned well at the 11th hour. I honestly don't care which of those it was. Why? Because this war took Saddam out of power, which is great for the Iraqi people and good for other countries who felt threatened by Saddam's aggression.

[martinexsquaddie]

having our glorious leader play sideshow bob to Bushes crusty the clown.
My feelings on the war our mixed Yeah saddam needed taking down should have been done in Gulf war one.
Failing to have a postwar plan in place before starting this adventure is pretty indefesable. A better plan IMHO finish off the job in afganistan first unfortunatly thats the unglamerous job of nation building the stan being home of BIN laden and there little friends being a danger to the rest of the world needed dealing with before saddam.
Not finding any WMD's which was the excuse for the war quite a bit of explaining to do . unfrotunatly for bush by the time elections come around death toll for US forces in Iraq is going to be nearing 1500 or so he will be facing some hard questions on this one,

[parker82nd]

****mus. You ****in canadian, you think u know so much about american policy and everything it does. If you wanna know about it then get your ass up and move down here. **** oh wait I forgot, canada is such a great nation to live. Blame Canada.

[Trigger]

James wrote:

I think the reference was made about why the honorable Mr. Bush took us to war. It certainly wasn't to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...
James, do you believe the Iraqis were developing WMDs? Even if we haven't found a nuclear tipped missile or a barrel of Sarin don't you think a madman like Saddam was a threat that needed addressing pre-emptively, or do you consider war only acceptable after we absorb the first blow?
This is not sarcasm. Just a question.

Why not N. Korea? Why not Iran?
Maybe both of those countries are so close to internal collapse due to starvation or political change from within that their threat may evaporate (figuratively) without U.S. military intervention, whereas Iraq/Saddam were firmly entrenched.
This is just speculation on my part. Please feel free to chime in.

[Royal]

James - to answer Triggers question to you ;) , yes I do believe that Sadaam was developing WMD's (whether any will be found, or whether he got them all to Syria we may never know).

I'm afraid that I agree with you that both Bush and Blair lied to their respective countries (and militaries) and I agree with you that that is unforgivable. I still support the war on Iraq, but I don't beleive that either 'major combat operations' are over or that either nation properly considered the follow up.

The war had to commence in March/April at the latest, because combat operations in an Iraqi summer in IPE would have been nigh on impossible. That meant that the security and reconstruction issues were not properly planned (and that is unforgivable too).

We are now in Iraq for the long run, but that does not mean that I have to like, respect or support either Bush or Blair.

[Saranof]

I mean...jeez...
Can you americans take a joke, or some simple criticism?! If you had your way, people with different opinions would be put in big camps and...oh wait...from where have I seen this...

I would have been behind the war if it had been for the Irquai peoples liberation. But it wasn't. I'm sorry, but history tells us that the US has commited so many crimes in the name of freedom, that you would puke.

I repeat: freedom war = ok.
But the US did not go to war for freedom.

[Adri]

the war was about WMDs. (that is all I have to say wich is ontopic)


Saranof:
I wouldn't take I joke about Norway, and I don't think they tought it was a funny joke.

[El'Potato]

Adri, the thing is: Do YOU make jokes about other countries?

Well, these guys, or to not generalize, most of them just looooove a joke on say us Swedes :P but when let's say we or another one which they freely joke around with to has a joke about americans it's like red alert :|

[Spooky]

If you honestly believe that Hussein didn't have weapons that were banned under the U.N. policies then you are a naive fool. If an American can make anthrax with some relatively simple laboratory equipment (Anthrax would be considered a WMD) then it seems that Hussein could probably make all sorts of fun things in a state as large as Iraq.

[RealUltimatePower]

ducimus19 wrote

hmmm, this is certainly reminicsenct of "Can Americans take a joke?"


Perhaps my joke was a little too brutally honest, but owell. Do you guys want some sugar and whip cream toppings so I can lighten it up next time?


War isn't a joke or maybe they don't teach that to you in the Canadian militia. Though seeing as it has been over 58 years since a Canadian militia unit fought a war the joke is really the CF itself.